On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:02:39 +0100, dave-kId6I2PxnVtBDgjK7y7TUQ wrote:
>>> and most of the rest are
>>> behind NATs which the user doesn't properly work around. :)
>>
>> Is there any reason why we cannot use STUN to avoid the NAT problems? It
>> ought to be fairly simple to encapsulate the TCP-pac
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 09:36:57PM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:02:39 +0100, dave-kId6I2PxnVtBDgjK7y7TUQ wrote:
>
> >>> and most of the rest are
> >>> behind NATs which the user doesn't properly work around. :)
> >>
> >> Is there any reason why we cannot use STUN to avoid the N
On Friday 21 May 2004 22:27, Toad wrote:
> > STUN is used to determine whether you are behind NAT. If you are then you
> > need a third party to start connections to others behind NAT. The third
> > party need not be a single server but can be a network of
> > communicating servers (such as all fre
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:39:37AM +0200, Martin Scheffler wrote:
> On Friday 21 May 2004 22:27, Toad wrote:
> > > STUN is used to determine whether you are behind NAT. If you are then you
> > > need a third party to start connections to others behind NAT. The third
> > > party need not be a single
